D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Flamestrike]

I think the argument goes that the only kinds of check that can be called for are ability checks, which can be abetted with skills. Thus the DM calls for a Constitution check (envisioning a kind of forced march swim thing going on) and allows that as the Athletics skill covers swimming, it can abet the Constitution check in this case.

I'd need to do a little more research to be 100% on this. Still, it's quite a tidy line of reasoning.

As a DM you determine when an ability check is required and if so what the DC is.

You also determine if a players skill proficiency applies to the check.

The guidance in the rules makes it pretty clear that climbing a rope (excellent handholds) generally does not require an ability check to do, as its the sort of thing that any adult human in reasonable physical condition can reliably do close to 100 percent of the time.

Doing it in a rainstorm, or with a broken collarbone, or in a hurry while under enemy fire from archers or similar circumstances might be sufficient complicating factors that might require a check.

Im not seeing the height of the climb at 6 stories being such a complicating factor because really, youre not pressed for time and can rest on the rope at will and recover your upper body strength.

The DC would be something like 0 (which is what it was in 3E) so unless were dealing with a particularly weak or frail PC, its not check worthy.

 

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely its about trust. Both ways.

Not for me. I trust my players, my players trust me, and still I prefer to tell them the DCs.

I guess I dont want players thinking about DCs and probabilities.

That’s fine. I do.

I want them thinking about (and mentally imagining) the scene and challenge itself.

I want them doing that too.

I generally refrain from telling them rhe DC in the same way I won't tell them a monsters AC.

I tell them both.

More than happy to describe the scene though, and then let them make decisions in character for themselves.

The problem I have with this is that verbal description is an imperfect method of conveying this information. No matter how much detail I go into, the players will always all have a slightly different picture in their heads of the environment. Furthermore, the players lack the same intuitive awareness of their characters’ capabilities that the characters themselves would have, were they real people. Their game statistics and the DC substitute for these deficiencies to give the player a simulacrum of the character’s ability to assess the situation, assess their own ability, and make a reasonable guess as to their likelihood of success. The dice roll serves as a simulacrum of the possibility that they assessed one or both factors incorrectly.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the argument goes that the only kinds of check that can be called for are ability checks, which can be abetted with skills. Thus the DM calls for a Constitution check (envisioning a kind of forced march swim thing going on) and allows that as the Athletics skill covers swimming, it can abet the Constitution check in this case.

I get that. My point is that the other side of this debate has been calling it a house rule to call for an ability check to climb really high or swim really far, since the rules say extra 2 feet or con SAVE. A save is not an ability check. If the DMG is using ability checks for simple distance swims, then their claim of house rule/home brew is false. RAW allows DMs to call for an ability check for things like climbing high and swimming distance.

 

[Xetheral]

I'd say getting exhausted while climbing a rope nearly a mile into the sky clearly has a meaningful consequence for failure.

Climbing a rope is as simple as doing a pull up, and then locking the rope with your feet. It's just climbing a mile of rope involves literally around a thousand pull ups.

An 80' climb is literally around 25 pull-ups, and considering you can rest as you climb, it's not a big issue.

But a thousand pull ups? Clearly several orders of magnitude more difficult than 25.

As a DM you determine when an ability check is required and if so what the DC is.

You also determine if a players skill proficiency applies to the check.

The guidance in the rules makes it pretty clear that climbing a rope (excellent handholds) generally does not require an ability check to do, as its the sort of thing that any adult human in reasonable physical condition can reliably do close to 100 percent of the time.

Doing it in a rainstorm, or with a broken collarbone, or in a hurry while under enemy fire from archers or similar circumstances might be sufficient complicating factors that might require a check.

Im not seeing the height of the climb at 6 stories being such a complicating factor because really, youre not pressed for time and can rest on the rope at will and recover your upper body strength.

The DC would be something like 0 (which is what it was in 3E) so unless were dealing with a particularly weak or frail PC, its not check worthy.

(Emphasis added.) To clarify, do you consider climbing a 1-mile-high rope to be a "sufficient complicating factor" so that the rules permit the DM to call for STR (Athletics) check? Or do you think that the rules would only permit calling for a CON check to climb a 1-mile-high rope? Or do you think that height of a rope climb is never a "sufficient complicating factor" to call for an ability check at all?

 

[Xetheral]

I get that. My point is that the other side of this debate has been calling it a house rule to call for an ability check to climb really high or swim really far, since the rules say extra 2 feet or con SAVE. A save is not an ability check. If the DMG is using ability checks for simple distance swims, then their claim of house rule/home brew is false. RAW allows DMs to call for an ability check for things like climbing high and swimming distance.

I'm pretty sure that @Charlaquin and @iserith are only arguing that it would be a house rule to call for Strength check to climb really high or swim really far. I think they've agreed that calling for a Constitution check would be within the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm pretty sure that @Charlaquin and @iserith are only arguing that it would be a house rule to call for Strength check to climb really high or swim really far.

Right, except that it's not. If the DM can call for an ability check, he can use whatever ability he feels like using without it being either a house rule or a home brew.

I think they've agreed that calling for a Constitution check would be within the rules.

There is no rule that they can show me that says that, though. There is only the general rule for calling for ability checks, which gives the DM the right to use any ability he chooses. There is no rule that says that it's okay to use con, but not strength for climbing and swimming.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I get that. My point is that the other side of this debate has been calling it a house rule to call for an ability check to climb really high or swim really far, since the rules say extra 2 feet or con SAVE. A save is not an ability check. If the DMG is using ability checks for simple distance swims, then their claim of house rule/home brew is false. RAW allows DMs to call for an ability check for things like climbing high and swimming distance.

No one is saying it is a house rule to call for a check for climbing high or swimming far. Just that there is no rules basis for calling for a Strength(Athletics) check in those circumstances. A Constitution check is appropriate though, perhaps with Athletics proficiency applied.

 

[iserith]

Right, except that it's not. If the DM can call for an ability check, he can use whatever ability he feels like using without it being either a house rule or a home brew.

There is no rule that they can show me that says that, though. There is only the general rule for calling for ability checks, which gives the DM the right to use any ability he chooses. There is no rule that says that it's okay to use con, but not strength for climbing and swimming.

The specific rules for climbing say when a Strength (Athletics) check may be appropriate.

The rules for Constitution checks say it resolves attempts to push beyond normal limits. A DM could say that is the case for a long climb. The rules for swimming, however, appear to use Constitution saves for anything over 1 hour of swimming as you already pointed out.

 

[Maxperson]

No one is saying it is a house rule to call for a check for climbing high or swimming far. Just that there is no rules basis for calling for a Strength(Athletics) check in those circumstances. A Constitution check is appropriate though, perhaps with Athletics proficiency applied.

There is the exact same basis as there is for any other check. That basis is the rules that allow the DM to call for checks. None of those rules restrict which stats can or cannot be used. Period. There is no rule that you can show me that restricts the DM in this manner for climbing or swimming.

 

[Maxperson]

The specific rules for climbing say when a Strength (Athletics) check may be appropriate.

No they don't. They give a non-exhaustive list of examples. It's not restrictive in any way. There is no example of using Athletics to try and push for a little more speed during a chase, but I can use Athletics for such an attempt without a homebrew or house rule.

The rules for Constitution checks say it resolves attempts to push beyond normal limits. A DM could say that is the case for a long climb. The rules for swimming, however, appear to use Constitution saves for anything over 1 hour of swimming as you already pointed out.

Strength is for lifting and pulling and the DM could call for a strength check or two to see if you are strong enough to pull such weight for that distance. Your strength could give out before your endurance does.